# CTX-006 — Independent test limiting the certainty of the Salford finding

Why this matters
An independent laboratory did not confirm Salford's reported brain-tissue changes. The exposure range and tissue staining were not identical, so the comparison needs care. It keeps reproducibility central. A common blinded protocol could help clarify the difference before conclusions about harmful exposure levels.

Id: CTX-006

Author: Masuda et al.

Full Authors: Hiroshi Masuda; Akira Ushiyama; Miyuki Takahashi; Jianqing Wang; Osamu Fujiwara; Takashi Hikage; Toshio Nojima; Koji Fujita; Motoshige Kudo; Chiyoji Ohkubo

Year: 2009

Title: Effects of 915 MHz electromagnetic-field radiation in TEM cell on the blood-brain barrier and neurons in the rat brain

Journal: Radiation Research

Citation: Masuda H, Ushiyama A, Takahashi M, Wang J, Fujiwara O, Hikage T, Nojima T, Fujita K, Kudo M, Ohkubo C. Effects of 915 MHz Electromagnetic-Field Radiation in TEM Cell on the Blood-Brain Barrier and Neurons in the Rat Brain. Radiation Research. 2009;172(1):66-73. doi:10.1667/rr1542.1.

Doi: 10.1667/RR1542.1

Pmid: 19580508

Topic: Specific neuropathology replication

Verification Group: Replication and cohort context

Record Role: Replication or cohort context

Featured: False

Exposure: 915 MHz TEM cells, one 2-h exposure; whole-body average SAR 0,0.02,0.2,2 W/kg; examination 14 and 50 days later.

Design: 64 male F344 rats aged 12 weeks; histology and immunohistochemistry; hematoxylin/eosin dark-neuron assessment. Full methodological audit incomplete.

Finding: Original abstract: no albumin immunoreactivity in exposed groups; dark neurons rare and not significantly different between active and sham groups. The authors explicitly failed to confirm Salford's result.

Boundary: Specific replication context required for faithful RF-020 interpretation. Does not test Salford's lowest 0.002-W/kg group, and differs in sex/age selection and staining. Not used as a general safety conclusion.

Related: Independent National Institute of Public Health/Japanese collaborators; targeted RF-020 replication rather than related Lund follow-up.

Protection Question: How do assay, animal and exposure differences affect the original pathology signal? Nonconfirmation limits certainty; neither small study alone can establish a harmful threshold or a general human safety conclusion.

Access: Original abstract through Scite/PubMed; Kyoto repository link identified but did not return readable PDF

Locator: Original abstract; article pp.66-73 full-methods retrieval outstanding

Notice: Scite metadata checked 20 Oct 2026; no editorial notice returned. Primary bibliographic records and targeted notices were checked where retrievable; no retraction or expression of concern located. This is not certification that no notice exists.

Funding: PubMed classifies non-US government support; specific grant not verified.

Conflicts: Not reported in retrieved abstract.

Source Url: https://doi.org/10.1667/RR1542.1

Retrieval Links: https://doi.org/10.1667/RR1542.1 | https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19580508/ | https://repository.kulib.kyoto-u.ac.jp/bitstreams/1a712cea-aba3-4da0-abd6-1da8290058b5/download

Verification Date: 2026-10-20